One of the aims of the Universal Declaration on B ioethics and Human Rights （UNESCO） is to ＂promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights＂,l Here are two overarching principles at work, ensuring that ...One of the aims of the Universal Declaration on B ioethics and Human Rights （UNESCO） is to ＂promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights＂,l Here are two overarching principles at work, ensuring that the biomedical sciences fulfill their task within an ethical framework. The principle of respect for human dignity is a universal moral concept, meant to be applied in human encounters. Protecting human rights underscores the legal principle of not only affirming the fundamental equality of all human beings, but equally safeguarding it. These two principles are universally defined, but are ordinarily specified by the particular value system of individual cultures in which they are employed. It is within such particular cultural application that their relevance stands out. The thrust of this paper is that, since principles are general action guides, they actually constitute a universal language for the analysis and evaluation of all human conduct. However, there is also recognition of the fact that moral contexts vary from culture to culture, and that while the scope of the two principles above is not restricted by any particular culture, it is indeed those cultural specifics of each moral context that constitute the framework within which the principles become operational. As general action guides, I will argue that these principles lack moral relevance outside of those particular cultural settings wherein they are contextualized. Without such relevance, these principles become meaningless mantras. I will further show that such principles do not merely uphold values informed by particular cultures, but they are an embodiment of values inherent to human nature in general. Consequently, these principles do not just serve as instruments for addressing issues peculiar to ＂Western bioethics＂ or any other particular cultural setting in an exclusive sense, but are also used for moderating bioethics discourse that transcend particular cultural boundaries. I will further explain that such universal discourse is potentially instructive with regards to how cultural universals are viewed in relation to the cultural particulars, and that this discourse essentially becomes a lingua franca for cross-cultural dialogue in bioethics.展开更多
Rural masses in India view English as the language of socio-economic empowerment through education. Education could be either in English or in regional languages, but children should learn English, because it is seen ...Rural masses in India view English as the language of socio-economic empowerment through education. Education could be either in English or in regional languages, but children should learn English, because it is seen as the key to the world of opportunities in higher education and employment. The governments need to politically respond to the aspirations of the common masses keeping aside both politicised language policies and theoretical linguistic inputs that encourage one＇s mother tongue as the ideal medium of instruction. Onerous responsibility lays on men, methods, and materials over which government have the least say, but the practising teachers of English and academics who help bureaucrats in framing language policies in India are solely responsible for non-realization of dreams of the masses. There is something terribly rotten in the state of English-teaching enterprise in India. This paper proposes to examine the present state of affairs in the teaching of English to rural students and to offer constructive alternatives to the existing package of men, materials, and methods.展开更多
文摘One of the aims of the Universal Declaration on B ioethics and Human Rights （UNESCO） is to ＂promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights＂,l Here are two overarching principles at work, ensuring that the biomedical sciences fulfill their task within an ethical framework. The principle of respect for human dignity is a universal moral concept, meant to be applied in human encounters. Protecting human rights underscores the legal principle of not only affirming the fundamental equality of all human beings, but equally safeguarding it. These two principles are universally defined, but are ordinarily specified by the particular value system of individual cultures in which they are employed. It is within such particular cultural application that their relevance stands out. The thrust of this paper is that, since principles are general action guides, they actually constitute a universal language for the analysis and evaluation of all human conduct. However, there is also recognition of the fact that moral contexts vary from culture to culture, and that while the scope of the two principles above is not restricted by any particular culture, it is indeed those cultural specifics of each moral context that constitute the framework within which the principles become operational. As general action guides, I will argue that these principles lack moral relevance outside of those particular cultural settings wherein they are contextualized. Without such relevance, these principles become meaningless mantras. I will further show that such principles do not merely uphold values informed by particular cultures, but they are an embodiment of values inherent to human nature in general. Consequently, these principles do not just serve as instruments for addressing issues peculiar to ＂Western bioethics＂ or any other particular cultural setting in an exclusive sense, but are also used for moderating bioethics discourse that transcend particular cultural boundaries. I will further explain that such universal discourse is potentially instructive with regards to how cultural universals are viewed in relation to the cultural particulars, and that this discourse essentially becomes a lingua franca for cross-cultural dialogue in bioethics.
文摘Rural masses in India view English as the language of socio-economic empowerment through education. Education could be either in English or in regional languages, but children should learn English, because it is seen as the key to the world of opportunities in higher education and employment. The governments need to politically respond to the aspirations of the common masses keeping aside both politicised language policies and theoretical linguistic inputs that encourage one＇s mother tongue as the ideal medium of instruction. Onerous responsibility lays on men, methods, and materials over which government have the least say, but the practising teachers of English and academics who help bureaucrats in framing language policies in India are solely responsible for non-realization of dreams of the masses. There is something terribly rotten in the state of English-teaching enterprise in India. This paper proposes to examine the present state of affairs in the teaching of English to rural students and to offer constructive alternatives to the existing package of men, materials, and methods.
